BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.238/2006

Between

Complainant : Joji Scaria S/o Scaria,

Kunnel House,

Pottankadu P.O,

Bisonvally Village,

Idukki District. (By Adv: Mathew John)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Proprietor,

Kissan Fertilizers,

Munnar Road, Adimali.

2. The Managing Director,

Ocean Agro(India) Limited,

Baroda, Gujarath.

3. The Manager,

Ocean Agro(India) Limited,

Kerala Office, 168, Sector B, Chandranagar, Palakkadu - 678007.

(All by Adv: Jose Thomas)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed for getting compensation against the opposite party for the damages caused to the cardamom plantation of the complainant due to the use of organic fertilizers supplied by the opposite party.

The complainant is a resident of Pottankadu Kara, who is having a property of 5 acres of land and the only livelihood of the complainant and his family is from the earnings of the agricultural land of the said 5 acres. Out of this 5 acres of land, 4 acres are cultivated with cardamom, which comes around 1500 cardamom plants. In October 2005, the Ist opposite party and the marketing persons of the 2nd and ^3rd opposite parties approached the complainant, introduced that the Ist opposite party is the authorised agent of the 2^nd opposite party, who is the manufacturer of organic fertilizers in the name and style Ocean Agro India Limited. They convinced the complainant that the product of them are good quality and fit for good growth of the cardamom plants. They also told that they have got recognition from the Government of India for marketing this product. Different advertisement brochures and notices about the organic fertilizers were given to the complainant at the time, by the opposite parties. The opposite parties inspected the agricultural land of the complainant and collected some soil for scientific analysis, told the complainant that they would supply organic manure depending on the result of the testing after 1 week. The opposite party approached the complainant and told that the result from the Soil Testing Laboratory has received and organic manure manufactured by the opposite party are fit for good growth of the cardamom plants, it will cause a good harvest to the complainant. On 18.11.2005, the complainant purchased organic manure from the opposite party for using in his cardamom plants which is about 1500 in number. The purchase was continued upto June 2006. The product named Amruth Meal, Amruth Guard, Amruth Cem, Delta, Don Muscodine, Wett Vem, Amruth Neem, Monoco etc. were purchased by the complainant and used by him. But unfortunately the cardamom plants were started to decay in June 2006. The leaves of the plants were dried and the roots were started to decay. But the opposite party never tried to do anything for curing the same. No other fertilizers used by the complainant none other than supplied by the opposite party. The complainant informed the matter to the Bisonvalley Krishi Bhavan and the Agricultural Officer inspected the plantation of the complainant. The Agricultural Officer told that the use of the organic fertilizer supplied by the opposite party made harm to the cardamom plants of the complainant and also the fertilizers supplied by the opposite party were in low quality. High percentage of chemicals included in the fertilizers supplied by the opposite party caused damages to the cardamom plants of the complainant. About 750 numbers of cardamom plants of the complainant were fully destroyed and the balance plants were partially destroyed due to the use of fertilizers supplied by the opposite party. After getting information from the complainant, the opposite party never turned up and a lawyer notice was issued on 27.09.2006. But the Ist opposite party deliberately avoided the same and it was returned. The complaint is filed for getting compensation for the damages caused to his agricultural crops and also for the mental pain caused to the complainant.

2. The Ist opposite party filed written version. It is stated that on 18.11.2005, the complainant came to the opposite party and asked about the price of the 3rd opposite party's products. The complainant also informed that his neighbours and friends are using 3rd opposite party's products and they are getting very good results. The complainant bought the literature and usage manual from the opposite party. He told that he would first try with Don Muscodine 500 ml and he purchased it from the Ist opposite party. After six months again the complainant approached the opposite party and purchased various products of 3rd opposite party. The complaint is filed only on experimental basis and the opposite party replied for the notice served by the complainant.

3. As per the version filed by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, the fertilizers supplied by them did not cause any harm to the cardamom plants. It is learnt that the complainant purchased organic fertilizers after getting good advices from by neighbours about the organic fertilizers of the opposite parties. Neither Government of Kerala nor the  Agriculture Department had given any specific circulars or directions for adopting bio-fertilizers and bio-insecticides. There are options spread among agriculturists. The opposite parties came to know that the complainant was not using any specific fertillizers. The organic fertilizers of the opposite parties are not coming under the Kerala Government specifications. This opposite parties had done lot of advertisements and notices through consumers. The opposite parties never attempted to test soil of any people, customers or outsiders. They do not have any machinery to effect it. The complainant did not purchase the required quantity of pesticides or fertilizers. The complainant purchased the fertilizers, one during November 2005 and the another during May 2006. The complainant made continuous purchase after seeing the results of the products of the opposite party. The complainant never approached any of the opposite parties after his second purchase. The opposite parties are unaware of the visit of the Krishi Officer in the premises of the complainant. The statement of the complainant that samples are tested is wrong. There is no laboratory in Kerala equipped for testing organic fertilizers. The complainant's plants have destroyed only because, he has not used sufficient quantity of opposite party's products. The opposite parties never engaged in any adulteration, misrepresentation or unfair trade practice. So the petition is not maintainable.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 to R3(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties. The commissioner was examined as DW3 and the report is marked as Ext.C1.

6. The POINT :- Complainant purchased bio-fertilizers from the Ist opposite party's shop, who is the authorized dealer of the 3rd opposite party in which he is the

Manager, and 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the company who manufacturers the fertilizer. After using the bio-fertilizer, the cardamom plants of the complainant's estate were decayed and destroyed. Complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 is having 5 acres of cardamom estate at Pottankadu. The complainant growing the cardamom plantation as per the direction of the Agricultural Department of the Kerala Government. Organic fertilizers are used for the same. There are 1500 cardamom trees in the plantation. Ist opposite party and the marketing executives of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties approached the complainant and introduced products of Ocean Agro India Limited. They have assured the complainant that their fertilizers are well and good for the growth of cardamom plants, and their high yield. They also told that the fertilizers are having the recognition of Kerala Government Agricultural Department and distributed the brochure cum advertisement to the complainant which is marked as Ext.P2(series). The opposite parties collected samples of soil from the estate for testing and after that it was reported to the complainant that their products are good for the soil. The complainant  on 18.11.2005 made the first purchase. Then the purchase continued upto June 2006. The bill for the same is marked as Ext.P1(series). The products of the opposite parties named Amruth Meal, Amruth Guard, Amruth Cem, Delta, Amruth Neem etc. were purchased and used by the complainant. But after June 2006 the plants were started to decay. The matter was intimated to the opposite party. But the opposite party never tried to inspect the plantation or tried to make good the plantation. The complainant reported the matter to the Cardamom Development Institute. The Cardamom Research Institute persons visited there and collected the samples. They have found that the fertilizers used were having high quality chemicals and not the organic fertilizers. Lawyer notices were instituted against the opposite parties, which is marked as Ext.P4. About 750 cardamom plants were totally damaged and the balance plants were partially destroyed. One witness examined as PW2 who is the auto driver. The complainant purchased the fertilizers from the Ist opposite party's shop to the plantation in PW2's autorikshaw. PW2 also deposed that about 700 cardamom plants were destroyed by using this fertilizer. The complainant's property is neighbouring to the property of PW2. The Ist opposite party was examined as DW1. As per DW1, the complainant approached the Ist opposite party's shop in November 2005 and told that the products of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are good for cardamom plantation. He himself told the same and asked for the products. The Ist opposite party supplied brochures and advertisements as per the request of the complainant. After convincing, he purchased Don Muscodine, Amrith Neem and Wett Wem from the Ist opposite party. Again the complainant approached on 18.11.2005 and purchased 2 litres of Don Muscodine. He also purchased products of other company and told the Ist opposite party that the products of 3rd opposite party has got good effect in cardamom plants. On 9.05.2006 the complainant enquired about 7 products of the opposite party and purchased the same. The opposite party himself arranged a jeep for transporting the fertilizers to the estate. The opposite party never approached the complainant or tested the soil as per the complaint. No complaint about the product was intimated to the opposite party before sending the lawyer notice. The Ist opposite party compelled the complainant to purchase Ovis PR-4 and other products against the decay of

the plants, but the complainant refused the same. The opposite party enquired the matter about the neighbours and it was understood that there was no damage caused to the complainant's cardamom plantation. Ext.R1 is the booklet supplied by the opposite party and Ext.R2(series) is the reply notice issued by them. Ist opposite party is having licence for selling the fertilizers, sale tax also paying. They are selling the products through Krishi Bhavan.

7. 2nd opposite party was examined as DW2. As per DW2, there is no report got from anywhere in Kerala about their products, as like that of the complainant. Neither Government of Kerala nor Agricultural Department had given any specific circulars or directions for adopting bio-ferlitizers and bio-insecticides. The complainant never got advice from Agricultural Department. The opposite party is not having any machinery for testing the soil in Kerala as alleged by the complainant. It is heard that the complainant's father replanted 1/2 acres of l and in 2006-2007 since the cardamom plants  were aged enough. The complainant purchased 2 litres of Don Muscodine during November 2005, which is an insecticide used against flies, leaf bugs, beetles, which attack the plants from outside. After seeing better result he repeated purchase after six months. A detailed commission report was filed by the advocate commissioner, which was marked as Ext.C1. The commissioner was examined as DW3. As per the commissioner no decay of plants or damage is noticed to the plants. But the cardamom trees are in good quality. The estate is also cultivated with banana trees, coconut trees and pepper wines. The plants are in good yields. Only 35 cardamom trees are seen, leaves yellow colours affected the growth. They are seen near to the pond in the plantation. But no specific report stated that they are caused due to the use of these fertilizers. It is also reported that nearly 500 cardamom trees were replanted within 2 years.

8. Considering the evidence, in C1 commission report, there is no wisper about the decay caused or destruction caused to the plants because of the use of the fertilizer supplied by the opposite party. The commissioner visited the disputed property only on 28.04.2008 which is nearly one year after the date of this complaint. In the report it is stated that 500 plants were replanted and they looks about 2 years age. Another 600 cardamom plants were seen below 1 year age. The 600 cardamom plants cultivated, having an age less than one year are situated in the western side of the pathway leads to the residence of complainant's property and in between the banana trees. They are not mentioned as replanted. In the complaint also it is not mentioned about the location of the decayed plants in the estate. The replanted cardamom trees are nearly 500 in number which are nearly 2 years old and situated in the portion adjacent to the pond. But they are good in yield. As per the complainant, they have purchased the fertilizer from the opposite party's shop in higher quality was in 9.05.2006. It would take sometime for the effect of the fertilizer. Anyway the legal notice issued by the complainant is on 27.09.2006. It means that the plants were started the damages nearly to that date. In the notice it is mentioned that the plants were replanted by the complainant. So it would have

replanted before some days of the notice. The commissioner visited the property on 24.04.2008. It means that the trees would have aged nearly 1 1/2 years of growth if it was replanted without lapse of time. No such replanted trees are mentioned in the commission report. As per the complaint, the qualified persons from the Cardamom Research Institute had visited the property when the decay disease was noticed in the plants. They had told to the complainant that the decay was caused because of the low quality of the fertilizer because of the increase of chemical content in the fertilizer. But no such report is filed before the Forum or produced by the complainant. If there is no report, the complainant did not make any of such person as a witness for proving the visit done by them or inspection done by them. The only witness supported by the complainant is the auto driver who had transported the disputed fertilizer. But he also deposed that the autorikshaw will not go to the property of the complainant. But DW1 deposed that he arranged a jeep for transportation. It may be true that the complainant purchased these fertilizers from the opposite party as per Ext.P1 bill. But there is no evidence brought out by the complainant to show that he had used the same for his  cardamom plants and it caused damages to the plants. It might have used by the complainant. But there is no chemical analysis report or the complainant never made any effort to test the chemical before any laboratory for checking the contents in it. The last purchase was done after 6 months from the first purchase, but there is no complaint about the fertilizer for the first purchase. No photographer is made as a witness to prove the photographs of the affected plants, no negatives produced. The quantum for damages assessed by the complainant is also not correct. Only a vague allegation of 19 lakhs rupees is claimed. How this much of compensation calculated, no account is mentioned. Only the Ext.P1 bill is produced as an account. It is also admitted by the opposite parties. If the cardamom plants of the complainants' property decayed due to this fertilizers, the other persons purchased these fertilizer would also have affected this. The complainant never made or tried to make a witness for the same. So we think that there is no evidence connecting the opposite party's fertilizer made damages to the cardamom plants of the complainant's estate or any unfair trade practice done by the opposite parties.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of February 2009

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Joji Scaria

PW2 - Sunil Kurian

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - V.Binil Kumar

DW2 - I.Satheesh Kumar

DW3 - V.C.Sebastian

Exhibits

On the side of Complainant :

Ext.P1(a) - Invoice dated 18.1.2005 for Rs.1,180/- issued by the Ist opposite party

Ext.P1(b) - Invoice dated nil for Rs.1,420/- issued by the Ist opposite party

Ext.P1(c) - Invoice dated 9.05.2006 for Rs.6,955/- issued by the Ist opposite party

Ext.P2(series) - Brochure cum advertisement(4 Nos)

Ext.P3 - Lawyer notice dated 27.09.2006 issued by the advocate of the complainant to the opposite parties

Ext.P4(series) - Postal Receipts(4 Nos)

Ext.P5(a) - Returned unclaimed lawyer notice addressed to the Ist opposite party

Ext.P5(b) - Postal AD Card

Ext.P6(series) - Postal AD cards(2 Nos)

On the side of Opposite parties :

Ext.R1 - Booklet published by the opposite party

Ext.R2(a) - Reply notice dated 25.10.2006 issued by the Ist opposite party's advocate

Ext.R2(b) - Postal Receipt

Ext.R2(c) - Postal AD Card

Ext.R3 - Reply notice dated 25.10.2006 issued by the advocate of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties

Ext.C1 - Commission Report